Appeal 3319723
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
4 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
described as ‘retained existing hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and on the street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached house which originally had a hipped roof, as is common to most properties in [address]. The house is undergoing approved works to construct two-storey and single-storey side and rear extensions. The works which are the subject of this appeal have been largely carried out. They were also the subject of a Certificate of Lawful Development (proposed) application which was refused in 2022.
The dormer covers much of the original rear roof of the property. It is not separated from the roof of the first-floor rear extension, but rather intersects the roof valley and extends over its ridge. Although it does not go above the main roof ridge, the dormer is not sufficiently contained within the roof slope and therefore appears bulky, incongruous, over-dominant and obtrusive in views of the rear of house, including from surrounding gardens. The dormer does not comply with the guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document - [name] (SPD) relating to the scale and design of roof alterations and dormer windows.
The dominant and obtrusive form of the development is also visible from the road and appears awkward, bulky, and incongruous when viewed alongside the other additions to the property. Their combined scale and prominence overwhelm the host property. Thus, there is further conflict with the SPD which advises that an extension should have a sense of proportion and balance, both in its own right and in its relationship to the original building and should not dominate. The use of a hipped roof on the two-storey side extension does not affect my conclusions.
The appellant argues that the proposal would be comparable to nearby properties which have had hip-to-gable side extensions. [name] saw a variety of roof level extensions in the locality, I saw none with a comparable amount of development as that carried out at the appeal property. In any event, the appeal proposal has been determined on its individual merits.
I conclude that the harmful effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and on the street-scene identified above is contrary to Harrow Core Strategy Policy CS1.B, Policy DM1 of the Development Management Local Plans Policies and the SPD, which together and amongst other things, seek to protect local character. There would also be conflict with London Plan (2021) Policy D3.D(11) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seek to ensure that developments add to the quality of the area, are visually attractive and are sympathetic to local character.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 322No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 August 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 31 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3319723
- Application reference
- P/3662/22
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Harrow
- Planning authority code
- E09000015
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 1 April 2023
- Valid date
- 1 April 2023
- Start date
- 4 July 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 22 August 2023
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 37528
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21